Skip to main content
10:00 am
i'm chris wallace. the crisis in ukraine deepens as the u.s. warns them not to try to split the country. >> the united states will stand with the international community in affirming that there will be costs for military ibt vengs. >> russian troops moof into crimea as the interim government accuses the kremlin of an invasion. what happens now? we'll have a live report. and the chair of the house intelligence committee mike rogers joins us with the latest only on "fox news sunday." then a new investigation into irs targeting of conservative
10:01 am
groups. we'll talk with house oversight committee chair who is calling back former irs officials who have refused to testify. it's a "fox news sunday" exclusive. and president obama prepares to unveil his new budget. with domestic spending increases, defense cuts and no entitle. reforms. >> his budget apparently will make no effort to address our debt and deficit. >> we'll sit down with leaders of the congressional budget committee. republican senator rob for theman and democratic congressman chris van hol en. plus, arizona governor jan brewer vetoes a bill that would protect religious freedom over gay rights. bu but other states may take up similar measures. and our power players of the week. they're making the please don't touch signs at mee seuseums a t of the past all right now on "fox news sunday."
10:02 am
and hello from fox news in washington. we begin with a fast moving develop. in ukraine. president obama spoke with russian president putin and said the u.s. will suspend planning for the g-8 summit in sochi this summer. britain and france just joined the u.s. but putin got approval from the russian parliament to send troops into ukraine. and the russians have seized control of the crimean peninsula without firing a shot. ukraine's government says we are on the brink of disaster and is asking the u.s. and europe for help. let's get the latest now from fox news national correspondent jennifer griffin. >> this could be the most dangerous situation in europe since the soviet invasion of czechoslovak czechoslovakia. president obama spoke with putin for 90 minutes saturday demanding mass he could withdraw the forces back to crimea. the offered to send international monitors to
10:03 am
ukraine. they say thousands russian troops flooded into crimea, convoys left the naval base surrounding and disarming ukrainian forces yet the only real action about it u.s. is to threaten to pull out of preparatory meetings for a g-8 summit set to be hosted by russia in sochi this june. ukraine closed the air spas to noncivilian aircraft and withdrew the coast guard vessels from two bases. ukraine's frprime minister said his country is on the brink of disaster, warning this could be the beginning of war. protests broke out in four cities where russian speaking ukrainians asked moscow to defend them. putin's parliament authorized him to use force in a unanimous vote. ukraine called up all men under the age of 40 to prepare to fight. warnings by u.s. officials did not deter russia from occupying crimea.
10:04 am
>> i'm closely watching russia's nian border. >> intervention in our judgment would be a very grave mistake. >> the supreme allied commander told reporters thursday nato had no military contingency prepared for ukraine. the pentagon says the same and emergency meeting of the north atlantic council is scheduled for today. chris? >> jennifer, thank you. for more on what happens now, we want to bring in the chair of the house intelligence committee mike rogers. chairman rogers, welcome back to "fox news sunday." what is the latest intelligence? what is happening on the ground in crimea and from your sources how far does putin intend to go? >> i think he certainly established that the crimea is something he doesn't want to lose his influence over and is willing to commit military troops. he has special shock type troops that trained and especially trained. we believe there are some regular units now on the ground in crimea. >> what's your sense?
10:05 am
does putin intend to take back crimeato go further into eastern and southern ukraine which is also very heavily oriented towards the russians? or he is just using this territory now as leverage over whatever the final deal is in ukraine? >> yeah. i think this is the most important territory to putin himself. and there is an old expression that russia without the ukraine is a country and russia with the crew and is an empire. i do believe putin understand that's. the most important part for him is military and strategic and both economic impact is the crimean peninsula. i think that's why you see such an aggressive, forceful attempt now to at least build the case for the crimea to allow them to go into the russian federation. >> go into the federation? >> i believe it will. we had an interesting thing happen. the upper chamber in moscow laid out a bill that would allow them to take any part of that --
10:06 am
their portion of any portion of ukraine into russia. that is a dangerous standard indeed. and i think that's probably more bluster. i think clearly they want the crimea. >> so we're talking annexation? >> i think the way they phrased that was to say that if they want to go into the russian federation, they would take them. so it wouldn't be a direct annexation from russia, it would be the crimea saying they want to come into russia and allow them to do that. >> in his statement on friday, president obama talked about unspecified costs if there was any further intervention. we understand from the 90-minute phone call yesterday between the president and putin that he specifically said that u.s. is suspending its involvement in preparatory talks for the sochi economic g-8 summit this summer. is any of that going to get putin's attention? >> not even a little bit. if any of that would have gotten
10:07 am
his attention, he wouldn't have been there in the first place. this is not an is late eisolate incident. they're expanding their border. they moved out the borders from 11 kilometers in georgia, nobody said a word. this is direct relation to what's happened in syria, the negotiations there. they thought they did well. they're holding their position. if you look at a series of events, russia believes that there is nothing going to stop them which is why they've been so aggressive in crimea. there is not a lot of options on the table. i'm a fairly hawkish guy sending more naval forces to operate in the black sea is not a good idea given that we know that that bay has long passed. unless you're intending to use them, i wouldn't send them. and so you've got now only economic options through the eu. i would use those and we shouldn't let the ukraine get the eu and the united states into a civil war in the ukraine. but there are lots of really good options leading up to. that i would just cancel in
10:08 am
sochi. i wouldn't talk about the planning session. i would cancel it and go into a very aggressive posture on how we help the ukraine financially. if they can get through the financial troubles, they could survive. >> lets's talk big picture. how do you think president obama has been handling relations with russia versus how putin handling relations with the united states? >> well, i think putin is playing chess and i think we're playing marbles. i don't think it's even close. if you look at the nuclear negotiations, we got our fanny handed to us. they took tactical nukes out of the ee kragquation. when you move down the list in syria, the russians got everything that they needed. they believe they needed in syria. and so they've been running circles around us. i think it's the naive position on a national security council and the president's advisors that if we just keep giving things to russia, they'll
10:09 am
finally wake up and say, boy, the united states isn't all that bad. that is completely missing the motivation of why russia does what russia does. and, again, they have an interest in expanding their buffer zone by unfluninfluence cases like the crimea, mull dol and other places next. it's in their interest to push out that buffer zone. by the way, the big one that started this was the absolute retreat on our missile defense system in poland and czechoslovakia. it caused huge problems for our allies. it really has been a down hill slide. >> talk about the sanctions. you said sending u.s. ships to the black sea doesn't make sense. you say that we should just boycott the g-8 summit in sochi. you would kick russia out of the g-8? how tough would you get in terms of economic trade and commercial transactions with russia? >> i clear wloi start tly would
10:10 am
process of removing them from the g-8 and do it in a public way with milestones they could meet or lose their continue to continue serving in the g-8. i don't believe russia thinks that is always in their number one best interest. they still have leverage. people say they lost their leverage on gas and energy. don't believe that's exactly true. they still have that. so, yes, that would be something that would be a little bit embarrassing to putin along the way. they ought to start that process now. they ought to be very aggressive about it. you have russian troops in the crimea. that's a serious problem. it's a serious problem for the stability of the ukraine and i argue other parts of europe. so we have to be aggressive now. and those are the kind after gresive things that can you do to doesn't vaf the u.s. navy. >> if the president fails to move aggressively as you would have him do, should congress move on its own to start to impose these sanctions? >> i think we should. i think we're obligated to do that and we ought to -- we should put packages together that ramp it up. if you recall, all of the
10:11 am
sanctions that happened on iran happened in congress. the president acquiesced. i think congress is going to have to play a very important role in this if we believe it's important to tone down the military options of civil war in the ukraine. >> finally, looking at president obama, looking at putin, how do you see this ending? what's going to happen in ukraine? >> well, you know, nobody has that magic ball. i would believe that russians would love to see the crimea as part of the russian federation. it was there until 1954 when it was given to the soviet republic of the ukraine at the time. i think they'd like it back. it's strategic for them militarily and economically. >> you don't see putin backing down? >> i don't believe that there's a good solution unless he can maintain his influence. he'll with drought troops if he can maintain his influence the way did he in moldova and other places. >> chairman rogers, thank you.
10:12 am
thanks for coming in today. of course, we'll be continuing to monitor develop. s in ukraine. thank you, sir. for the record, we invited secretary of state kerry to join us today. butt although he put him out on all the broadcast sunday shows, they declined to make him available us to or you. lois learner refused to testify. now house oversight committee chair david isa wants to question her again based on new information he uncovered. we'll have an exclusive interview.
10:13 am
if ...hey breathing's hard... know the feeling? copd includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis. spiriva is a once-daily inhaled copd maintenance treatment that helps open my obstructed airways for a full 24 hours.
10:14 am
spiriva helps me breathe easier. spiriva handihaler tiotropium bromide inhalation powder does not replace fast-acting inhalers for sudden symptoms. tell your doctor if you have kidney problems, glaucoma, trouble urinating, or an enlarged prostate. these may worsen with spiriva. discuss all medicines you take, even eye drops. stop taking spiriva and seek immediate medical help if your breathing suddenly worsens, your throat or tongue swells, you get hives, vision changes or eye pain, or problems passing urine. other side effects include dry mouth and constipation. nothing can reverse copd. spiriva helps me breathe better. does breathing with copd weigh you down? don't wait to ask your doctor about spiriva.
10:15 am
after very careful consideration, i've decided to follow my counsel's advice and not testify or answer any of the questions today. >> former irs official lois learner refusing to testify last may about her role in the targeting of conservative groups seeking tax exempt status. this after the treasury department found 298 applications had been singled out for special review including 100% of groups with tea party or patriot in their name but only 30% of groups with progress or progressive. now republican congressman darrell issa, chair of the house oversight committee wants lernor
10:16 am
to testify again wednesday based on new information he has. chairman, welcome back to "fox news sunday." >> thanks for having me back and for covering what we believe is going to be a good fact finding hearing. >> all right. let's talk about that. when you recall low he ed lois o testify, her lawyers said can you call her but she is not going to answer any questions. i understand you have late breaking news. >> we do. her attorney indicates now that she will testify. we've had a back and forth negotiation. but quite frankly, we believe that evidence that we've gathered causes her in her best interest to be summoned to testify. >> lois lernor will testify before your committee? >> according to her attorney. >> this will be on wednesday? >> wednesday. >> what changed her mind? was it -- did you give her immunity for her testimony? was she frightened by the
10:17 am
possibility of contempt? what changed her mind? >> we really don't know. what we do know is during the intervening period we interviewed all the people around her to build a case for why she is at the center of this targeting, why it wasn't cincinnati as you said in your opener. it wasn't liberal and conservative groups. it was groups targeted first by their name, patriot or tea party and then later at lois lernor's assistance by some objective statements. but for the most part, it continued to target conservative groups. >> a couple quick house keeping. you didn't offer her immunity. >> we did not. >> is it your understanding that she will answer all questions that you and the committee have about her involvement in the targeting of conservative groups? >> that's our understanding. as you know, our committee did vote that she waived her fifth amendment rights when she made verbatim statements under oath about not having broken any rules and regulations and
10:18 am
authenticated other statements. >> all right. what questions do you have for lois lerner? what are you going to ask her? >> chris, we know what she did in most cases. what we don't know is why she did it. what we do understand, of course, is this is someone who came from the federal election commission. she came with a bias towards groups having to disclose. 501-c-4s are different in because they don't primarily do election hearing, if you will, they don't have to disclose donors. en that seems to be one of the questions that could lead us to understand why a liberal individual who favored disclosure wanted to make sure that tea party groups had to diz close who the donors were. >> when you say you want to know why she did it, does that mean you want to know does this end with her or go higher up than her? >> that's certainly a big part of it. we know a lot of people she coordinated with, some of the
10:19 am
things she said, how they either acquiesced or chafed against the things she was asking them to do. we do really want to to know that burning question who have else knew about it? who else coordinated? and candidly, i think the american people want to know that won't happen again. and that's going to be the harder part for ways and means committee and others to do is to put in checks and balances so that no one person, if it is in fact one person, can ever leave the targeting of somebody for audit or this treatment of nat giving them a fair yes or no on an application. >> let me ask you, obviously when she testifies you'll know nor about this, do you think it's possible that it's just one person that this targeting that began didn't end but began with lois lerner? >> there were other people who knew or should have known better and went along it with. but certainly she was in a powerful position and very well could have been mostly acting on her own. but again, there should have been safeguards to see this. the accumulation of not just
10:20 am
some but every single application fit includes tea party or patriot, that flies in the face of managers doing their job to oversea somebody at the irs. you've got to hold people accountable knowing that they're human, that there will be people doing wrong in government. there have to be checks and balances. and if it's the irs, you'd better believe the american people perfect the aclu to the nra across the spectrum want to make sure that politics stay out of the irs. >> we have received a draft copy of a report that's been written by the house republicans on your committee. i want to put up part of that. in the executive summary you, the house republicans say she was keenly aware of acute political pressure to crack down on conservative leading organizations. congressman, pressure from whom? >> that's one of our questions. she says things like they put pressure. so e-mails indicate that there
10:21 am
was pressure. we don't know whether it was tht the house, the senate, and the supreme court over citizens united or whether it was -- >> during the state of the union address? >> during the state of the union. where she felt the pressure. only she can tell us where she thought that pressure was. >> the report also cites a newly discovered e-mail from september 16th, 2010 in which she discusses thou check whether groups seeking tax exempt status are engaged in political activity. this is an e-mail to other people in the irs. she says, "we need to have a plan. we need to be caution so it isn't a per se political project." what do you think that e-mail shouts? >> it's a series of e-mails. when you read them in context, what you realize is she's trying to walk back any kind of ability for someone to look at the record and say this was political targeting. and, yet, it clearly is political targeting. >> now there is a new effort under way, the irs promulgated a
10:22 am
regulation under which it would impose new boundaries on what these 501-c-4s, the tax code, these are social welfare groups applying for tax exempt status, new limits on how much political activity they can be involved in. the administration and irs sold this as a reaction to the scandal. i gather you've gotten information that this began long before the scandal broke. >> exactly, chris. lois lerner was part of the project of targeting conservative groups to laying and cracking down on existing ones. and then this rule change was worked on all the way back at that point to a great extent we believe this is the result of citizens united. this is their attempt to get what they don't have and couldn't get at the sec through the irs. >> on super bowl sunday, bill o'reilly asked president obama
10:23 am
about the irs targeting of conservative groups. >> there was some bone head decisions, bone head decisions out of a -- >> no mass corruption? >> not even mass corruption. >> okay. >> now, there are six current investigations going on of the irs scandal. four inside congress, two inside the administration. one in treasury, one in the justice department. a couple of questions. one, have any of those investigations been completed and cleared the irs of wrongdoing? and what do you think of the president stating there there's not a smidgeon of corruption? >> he has to define smidgeon and corruption for both of us. there is real evidence that there was wrongdoing and that wrongdoing was not in cincinnati but in fact, in washington, d.c. >> let me point out quickly that when you talk about cincinnati, there was the initial allegation that this was a rogue office, an irs office in cincinnati and this they were responsible for all this.
10:24 am
>> exactly. and that's where the president is reintroducing things that have already been disproven. but let's understand this is the administration that wants to you have believe a video launched the benghazi murders when in fact that was disproven. and even after it was reintroduced by this administration again and again, including by this president, senator feinstein in the select intelligence committee in the senate led by democrats made it clear that the factors that led to that had a lot more to do with terrorism than it ever would a video. >> all right. that brings up my final question for you. you have come under fire both in the irs and benghazi and other investigations of your committee for political witch hunts. they point specifically to a speech you gave to gop fund-raiser in new hampshire in february about the benghazi terror attack. here is a clip. >> why there was not one order given to turn on one department of defense asset. i have my suspicions which is
10:25 am
secretary clinton told them to stand down. >> but "the washington post" fact checker cited that there were no stand down orders and there is also no evidence that clinton ever spoke to leon panetta then defense secretary that night. and for the second time forgave you four pi no4 pin oak yoes. >> the first one was for quoting something in somebody else's report, believing it was true which is an unusual way to get four pinnochios. witnesses have told us that they asked for help. the president himself implied that he told leon panetta, then secretary of defense, to use what efforts they could and what we know for a fact is not one
10:26 am
aircraft, not one rescue of dod was launched to get there in that 8 1/2 hours. >> to be honest, do you not have any evidence that secretary clinton told leon panetta to stand down. >> well, the use in answering questions in a political fund-raiser, that was in response to a question, the term stand down is not used in some sort of an explicit way. but rather the failure to react, the fact that only state department assets and only assets inside the country were ever used that members of the arms forces, gun carrying, trained people were not allowed to get on the aircraft to go and attempt to rescue. those kinds of things through state department resources represent a stand down. not maybe on the technical terms of stand down, soldier, but on what the american people believe is a failure to respond what they could have. >> all right. congressman, thank you. thank you so much for coming in today. again, we want to point out the big news, and the big news is
10:27 am
that lois lerner according to her attorney is going to waive her fifth amendment rights and will testify before issa's house oversight committee this week. thank you for the news. we'll be following the hearing. >> thank you, chris. also this week, the white house releases its budget with controversial proposals for spending increases but big defense cuts. we'll discuss it with two budget leaders, rob portman and chris vanhol o vanhollen. of supercomputing time, 3 million lines of code, 40,000 sets of eyes, or a million sleepless nights. whether it's building the world's most advanced satellite, the space station, or the next leap in unmanned systems. at boeing, one thing never changes. our passion to make it real. ♪
10:28 am
10:29 am
10:30 am
i literally haven't been to a doctor in 15 years. i had a car accident when i was uninsured, and i declined medical assistance because it was gonna be too expensive. as a result, i deal with back pain on a pretty regular basis. after it had built up for so long of not having insurance, i couldn't believe that it was just that easy. it was just nice to have a plan that was a reasonable monthly premium. i'm in because i don't want to put a price on my health. [ female announcer ] everyone deserves health insurance. are you in? visit, and get covered today.
10:31 am
on tuesday president obama unveils his 2015 budget calling to an end to the era of austerity. and while we've just seen an outline, there is a fierce debate here in washington. joining us now members of both congressional budget committees, from the senate, ohio republican rob portman and from the house, mayor democrat chris vanholland. president obama moves away from deficit reduction calls for new spending or investment as he calls it. he proses $56 million for early childhood education and $300 for new infrastructure projects. he would pay for all this through closing corporate
10:32 am
loopholes. >> as democrats, we believe that instead of more tax breaks for the few, we should make invest. to grow the economy for everyone. >> what do you think of the new budget? >> well, i think if that's correct, chris, it's really sad. we're looking at two things right now. one is incredibly slow economic growth. the slowest recovery we've had since world war ii. we just saw that fourth quarter numbers were adjusted downward. so we know that last year's growth was far below the year before. we also know that unemployment is extremely high. we know that we have record number of people on long term unemployment. so our economy is hurting the last two months jobs numbers were the worst we've had in three years. so we need economic growth, not new taxes. new taxes will make it harder to grow the economy. second we know because the congressional budget office just told us a week or so ago that we have record levels of debt and growing levels of debt. another $10 trillion added to our debt in the next ten years. we get backed up to a trillion
10:33 am
dollars a year in deficits during that time period. so we though those two things. and, yet, the president saying, no, we're going to put more taxes on the economy. we're not going to deal with the debt and deficit. >> let me bring in, because we have limited time, let me bring in congressman vanholland. the reason we can afford new spending is because the deficit is going down. that only tells part of the story. according to the budget office, the deficit does drop this year and next. but then if you look in the outyears, it starts to go up again and reaches over $1 trillion again by 2022. >> well, that's right. i can just say a quick word on the u-turn response in the earlier section. i think we're 48 hours near an international crisis. i would hope americans would focus on condemning the actions of putin rather than knee jerk way again criticizing the president of the united states. let's stand together on this. with respect to the president's budgets, does he exactly what we should be doing. right now as rob said, we have
10:34 am
seen economic growth. but we're not nearly where we want to be.we need to be tickin cylinders. that's why he said let's end the tax breaks that encourage u.s. companies to move jobs overseas, use those savings to invest in inf infrastru infrastructure. let's build our roads, airports, broadband, that's what we need to compete. the president recognizes that we've got to deal with the long term deficit issues which is why his budget is as they've indicated will reduce the long term deficits. >> then it goes back up? >> now, they're on a downward trajectory at the end of that ten-year period. >>, no as we just showed, it goes up over a trillion dollars. >>, no we're talking about the deficits. we're talking about the deficits at the end of the -- >> i am talking about the deficits. the deficits go up. >> we'll submit a budget in a couple days. >> what were you going to say senator portman? >> no, chris, look, we clearly
10:35 am
have a growing debt problem. this is the most predictable crisis in the country. the president refuses to deal it with. if you look at his budget last year, it barely had deficit reduction relative to what would happen otherwise. in other words, there was a slight decrease in the deficit. you would hope there would be a significant one. but the only reason there was was because there was a provision in there about a more accurate measure of inflation under the cpi and social security. we now hear that he's actually going to take that out of the budget at a time when social security has a $63 billion short fall every year at a time again when we were told by this nonpartisan congressional budgets office things are getting worse not better. if he takes that out as he's going to do based on the leaks because it's a partisan political year, he's not going to have any deficit reduction. he's going to increase the debt and deficit. if that's true, boy, again, this is not responsible. this is not responsive to what is really happening. >> what we're talking about here
10:36 am
is the biggest part by far the biggest part of the budget. and that entitleme in. t. lacht year as part of the budget, the president included chain cpi, a slower measure of inflation for social security. this year he's taking that out. now regardless of the rest of the economy, the fact is that the entitlements are running out of money and you're taking out a way to save money. >> well, two things on that. i find it curious that as we speak many republicans are telling the president and cms that we should not end some of the overpayments to the private insurers and medicare system which will drive up long term deficits. by the way, they included this -- >> can we stick on this? >> absolutely. i'm glad rob brought this up. the president included. that i happen to think that on the merits it has -- i have concerns it with. the president included that in last year's budgets as part of an agreement. part of a package where he said republicans, you should join me in at least closing some tax
10:37 am
loopholes, even one, for the purpose of reducing our long term deficit. republicans couldn't identify a single tax loophole that they would close for the purposes of deficit reduction. they're all concerned about reducing the deficit. but they wouldn't close one tax loophole coupled with cpi. >> it's not in the budget. >> i get your point. i get your point. let me ask senator portman a question. the fact is that the president made it clear when he included chain cpi in the budget last year it was a bargaining chip and the argument is, and there's a point to it, you guys, the gop, refuse to make the bargain. >> now look, that's ridiculous with all due respect. they have huge tax increases in it. because the change is not only the cpi index for beneficiaries on important programs, again, to a more accurate measure of inflation. it also changes the way the brackets and tax code are indexed for inflation. therefore, it as almost as much tax increase as it does again
10:38 am
the -- >> i'm confused. i thought that republicans for chain cpi. you are saying you're against it? >> no. what i'm saying is that democrats say you can't touch chain cpi unless you raise taxes should know that chain cpi has within it a tax increase because of the indexing of the brackets. and so this is a ridiculous argument. this is one that is balanced if you want balance the way the president wants to do which is have taxes and some important restranr restraints on spending. second, look, the president got plenty of tax increases. >> gentlemen, i don't mean to interrupt you. i'm saying equal opportunity. i want to cover one last area. there is one area where there are big cuts, big cuts. and that's for the pentagon. defense secretary hagel says he would shrink the army from a post 9/11 high of 570,000 to less than 450,000 which will be the smallest army since 1940. congressman van hollen, especially thou with you talk about russian aggression in
10:39 am
ukraine, should we be shrinking the army to preworld war ii levels? >> i don't think we need an army that is supposed to support two overseas ground wars that we're winning at the same time. i think you can respond to the threats as they arise with the lower army. you still have the air force. you still have the navy. you still have a very large army to go with it. and the other point i'd make is part of the budget agreement that was reached in a bipartisan way calls for reductions in defense spending through fiscal year 2015. the president has actually said he doesn't think that defense is enough which is why he's proposed additional funds, paid for by taxpayers. >> i have to call time on you. we have less than a minute left for senator portman. smallest army since 1940? >> it's a problem. again, you look at what is happening in the ukraine. also, look beyond ukraine and look at what is happening in the south china sea with china. look at what is happening in the middle east.
10:40 am
we could not have done the surge in iraq with an army that size. look, this is a problem. we need to be sure that these changes and the defense budget are consistent with what we need to do aren't world which unfortunately, the united states is still in the position of having to lead around the world to avoid the stain built we see right now in crimea. this sin credibly important that we get this right. yes, i agree that we need to be sure we're restraining spending and everything is on the table and reduce waste, froaud and abuse. i think you have to make it more difficult for the united states to project force around the world. >> senator portman, congressman van holle nchl, thank you both. we have a big show today and squeeze a lot n thank you both, gentlemen. next up, arizona governor jan brewer vetoes a bill that would allow businesses to deny services to gays for religious reasons. buts is no the dead in other states. our panel discusses that and the latest from ukraine. and what you would like to ask the panel? just go to facebook or twitter.
10:41 am
10:42 am
10:43 am
10:44 am
any violation of ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity is deeply destabilizing which is not in the interest of ukraine, russia, or europe. >> president obama on friday warning russia of costs if military force is used in ukraine. it's time now for our sunday group. george will, former republican senator scott brown and former democratic senator evan buy. george, what's your sense how far putin and the russians are willing to go in crew and and what if anything and president obama to about it? >> i think he'll go as far as he needs to go to preserve ukraine and insert influence if that is
10:45 am
not an integrated part of his country because it's the key to their great power status. now what can we do about it? we can begin by recognizing that russia is a third world country. the third world country with first world military. but in terms of the economic infrastructure, it's very vulnerable. and we have what they need which is access to our banking system, credits, and the flow of world capital. that we can influence and that we can do. how important is it? 100 years ago in central europe there was a spark from which the world is trying to recover and europe will never recover, first world war. here we have this weekend, this week we've seen arms forces cross an international border in the center of europe. this is serious business. >> senator, on friday night president obama spoke to the nation. he talked about unspecified costs if there was military intervention. there now have been military
10:46 am
intervention. the president spoke with putin f for 90 minutes on the phone and the only specific thing we heard is the u.s. will suspend preparatory talks, not the actual summit, preparatory talks for the g-8 summit in sochi this summer. should the president be more specific and much tougher about economic sanctions? >> chris, there are no easy options here. and you look at what happened in georgia a decade or so ago when george w. bush was president and people never accused him of being soft on the russians or things in general of this nature. can you do symbolic things and threat tone cancel the g-8 meeting. putin won't care about that. can you do financial things which george mentioned. if we can get the cooperation of the europeans could really penalize the russians. but that would require the europeans to make sacrifices which historically they're reluctant to do. or perhaps, and more likely,
10:47 am
look at other sfeerz of influence that they care about. syria, for example, and really step up some of our things there to try and replace the assad regime. but to directly intervene in ukraine, there is realistically, not much we can do that american people are willing to pay the price for. >> senator brown? realistically, what can and should the president and the west because obviously this isn't just a u.s. issue. the european union do to try to stop them? >> you can't do it alone. obviously military options are off the table. no one wants another war. when you look or speaking to people in just last night i was out and talked with folks. they say what do you by this what the president is doing with ukraine? they kind of chuckle because of what we've had and what we've seen with obviously syria and the red line issues, with benghazi with fast and furious and with obamacare, there are always the empty threats. so there say problem of credibility. i don't think putin really cares what president obama says or does. i agree with george and evan,
10:48 am
economic sanctions and economic issues withholding certain opportunities is where you're going to get the best bang for your buck. and we can't do it alone. we need to do it with our european partners. >> there was and ukraine is obviously the central story this week, there was another big story this week and that was in arizona where that state's governor jan brewer vetoed a bill that would have given businesses right to refuse services to various people on the basis of, largely gays, on the basis of religious freedom and religious convictions. here's the governor first and then president obama reacting to her decision. >> i've not heard one example in arizona where business owners for religious lib certificate violated. >> in some states, they're so far in the past they're even pushing laws to legalize segregation based on sexual orientation. >> you can see the president
10:49 am
obviously wants to continue this conversation. and the fact is conservative groups are pushing similar measures for the one that was vetoed in arizona in oklahoma and missouri, mississippi, and kansas. where do you see this going? >> well, we've actually counted ten states considering similar legislation to arizona including florida where rich scott who is running for election came out and said he would veto the measure this week which is very interesting from rick scott in florida. i think we're likely to see democrats try to exploit this in the midterm elections because it is an issue that's dividing the top from the bottom of the republican party, major interests, business interests, national republican leaders are divided from the base on this issue as they are on many others. so i think democrats see an opening here in an election psych that will is not likely to be friendly to them and they're going to continue to emphasize the issue as a way to boost their voting at the poll. >> george, i think it's fair to say that there are deeply felt
10:50 am
positions on both sides of this debate, religious freedom versus gay rights. we asked all of you for questions and we got this on facebook from dan fletcher with as many tax that's businesses have to pay, how does this government think they have any justification to tell a business who they will and won't serve? how, george, do you answer dan and more generally, how do you come down on this issue of religious freedom versus gay rights? >> free exercise of religion, clash of rights. here's how i answer dan. 50 years ago this day in one of surely the great legislative achievements in american history we passed the public accommodation section of the civil rights act saying if you open your doors to business in the united states you open it to everybody. that's a subtle issue. and the prestige of that law that just was obtained and i think that's where the mesh american people come down. it's a funny kind of sore winner
10:51 am
in the gay rights movement that would say a photographer doesn't want to photograph my wedding. i have lots of other photographers i could go to. i'm going to use the hammer of government to force them to do this. it's not neighborly and it's not nice. the gay rights movement is winning. they should be, as i say, not sore winners. >> but having said that, i understand your point. you do say that if a gay couple wants to go into a bakery and have a wedding cake, the bakery should have to make cake. >> bake the cake. >> bake the cake. senator brown? you're thoughts on this? >> i thought what governor brewer did was appropriate to veto the law. there are good people on both sides of these very difficult issues. and i think we need to focus on the things that matter, deficit, taxes, spending, jobs, national security, energy, what's happening in our foreign policy. the democrats obviously want to use this. they clearly want to use it as a
10:52 am
devisive issue to use for tactical advantage in the upcoming election. everything they've done to this point with the obamacare rollout and lack of focusing on things that matter, people are going to be speaking in the election. they're going to hold folks accountable for the decisions. >> i can just see the e-mails coming into our website with people saying, wait a minute, this matters. it matters because i'm genuinely offended that, you know, somebody -- by the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex and if i don't want to serve them, you know, or participate in a wedding in a sense, i don't want to do it. >> listen, i understand that. it's a difficult situation. there is no easy answers on these issues. but if you're talking politics, first of all, there is no issue. it's not the law of arizona. waits vetoed. however -- >> but this could come up. >> everybody has the right to debate and make their own personal decisions and then they'll play out as they did in
10:53 am
arizona. but if you talk strictly political, the democrats want to focus on everything but obamacare and the economy and that's what they're going to do. >> real quickly, chris, things must be great in arizona if this is the most important thing for them to focus on. number two, george is right. if you're open to the public, you're open to all the public. if you want to do something other than that, stay private as a club. number three, it's a political matter. this is madness for the republicans. it divides them. it offends moderates. focus on the economy. >> thank you, panel. see you next week. up next, our power players of the week bringing the smithsonian not only into your home but into your hands. it's very cool.
10:54 am
[ male announcer ] meet mary. she loves to shop online with her debit card. and so does bill, an identity thief who stole mary's identity, took over her bank accounts and stole her hard earned money. unfortunately, millions of americans just like you learn all it may take is a little misplaced information to wreak havoc on your life. this is identity theft, and no one helps stop it better than lifelock. if mary had lifelock's bank account alerts, she could have been notified in time to help stop it. lifelock has the most comprehensive identity theft protection available, guarding your social security number, your money, your credit, even the equity in your home. you even get a $1 million service guarantee. that's security no one can beat. don't wait until you become the next victim! call the number on your screen and use promo code notme for 60 days of lifelock identity theft protection
10:55 am
and get a document shredder free. call the number on your screen or go to the smithsonian institution is called the nation's attic. 19 museums, nine research centers and the national zoo. now through the magic of cutting edge technology, you can see highlights from the collection like never before. here are our power players of the week. >> our 3-d program, what we're able to do is take down the laws of the smithsonian. >> they'll always be relevant. but now you can compliment that with being able to look at something online or 3-d print it and hold ut in your hand. >> these are digitzation officers but their colleagues call them laser cowboys. they capture some of the
10:56 am
collection's 137 million objects and put them online in 3-d. allowing you to experience them in ways you can't even in person. take, for example, this mask of abraham lincoln. >> i'm at the opt mall distance. >> they take an arm scanner and paint a laser beam across the maps. >> oh, my gosh. here it is showing up. that is unbelievable. >> so you can see an object like this, like the life mask, take maybe 15 or 20 minutes to 3-d scan. >> now if you go to the smithsonian website, can you manipulate the object and see things you can't see in the museum. you're able to manipulate this just with the regular mouse? >> yep. >> i can actually pull up the two life masks that were taken of lincoln in office and while he was still alive so on the left here, the one thing this was taken in remaining months of the civil war.
10:57 am
and this is a life mask that was taken just before the civil war. >> and what you can really see is how much he had aged. >> exactly. >> they started this program three years ago and so far they put 21 objects online. the original wright brothers flyer, a carved limestone bud yachlt it's impossible to make out the design in person. but online -- >> if we zoom in here this is what the stone looks like in real life. i can actually remove the coloring and then pull out the areas of high curvature. and now you can see everything that's happening. >> so much greater detail than you could if you were a foot away from it. >> remember the lincoln mass snk you can download the computer image and get an exact copy on a 3-d printer in your home or classroom. >> it's almost a magical process that can you scan an object without touching it and then bring it back into the real world. >> vincent was a sculptor, adam a painter. they used to create exhibits for
10:58 am
the collection. >> sort of on the side in nights and weekends, we started supporting research projects around the smithsonian, scanning technology and software that was developed with hodly wo lhollywd or ct scanners, we're trying to apply that to the museum world so far. >> so far the process is slow and labor intensive. the laser cowboys have big plans. >> perhaps we're going to start introducing robots and assembly lines into the system. we want to move first to digitizing hundred dridz of objects athe a time and then we can start thinking about thousands of objects per year. >> like i said, pretty cool. to experience smithsonian x3d go, to the website, that's it for today. have a great week and we'll see you next "fox news sunday."
10:59 am
11:00 am
>> announcer: the proceeding program is a paid advertisement for lifelock identity theft protection. today on "living well with montel"... >> something was terribly, terribly wrong. >> announcer: when the fraudulent bills started showing up, it was bad. >> i had not applied for any of these things. >> announcer: what happened next was worse. >> the woman told me, "the credit cards have been activated from your home phone." >> announcer: 30 years ago, she was a hardworking single mom fresh from college, so why couldn't she open a line of credit? >> finding out that i was $112,000 in debt was devastating. >> announcer: three decades later, it happened again. it's identity theft, one of the fastest growing crimes in america.

FOX News Sunday With Chris Wallace
FOX March 2, 2014 10:00am-11:01am PST

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio); Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.); Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.); columnist George Will; journalist Elise Viebeck; former Sen. Scott Brown; former Sen. Evan Bayh.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Ukraine 28, Russia 17, U.s. 9, Arizona 8, Us 8, Sochi 6, Irs 5, United States 5, Spiriva 5, Europe 5, Syria 5, Cincinnati 4, Lois Lerner 4, Obama 4, Benghazi 4, Washington 4, Jan Brewer 3, Leon Panetta 3, Copd 3, Clinton 3
Network FOX
Duration 01:01:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel v702
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 1280
Pixel height 720
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 3/2/2014